a3d6g2f7

I'm genuinely curious, what would you do with the data?

Please do not read this the wrong way. I am not questioning what you're doing as improper. I am just curious.

Isn't most of the data in PACER just procedural (cf. substantive)? If yes, wouldn't it have only limited value in illuminating to the public "what the law is"? Would it have some other value? Maybe it might allow generation of some interesting statistics on outcomes, etc.? Maybe you are planning to "disrupt" the jury research industry?

Pardon my ignorance.

(Personally, I think you should also support freeing up access to academic research. Public access to research publications is equally as important as access to the total corpus of US Court dockets. I'm not sure anyone could learn that much just by reading court dockets. But I can assure you that by reading the scientific literature in a given field of science, one can learn a great deal.)

I agree with you entertainment is a cash cow. But FB is _free_ entertainment. As is your photo-album and the discussions you have with your friends.

You appear to be referring to future success. It's like Microsoft talking up "vaporware". It gets people's attention, maybe it convinces some to believe and some to invest, but it offers them nothing. Only a promise of some future of which no one can be certain.

We have almost two decades of web display ads and their effects on building brands. Advertisers are not too impressed. They have waited patiently for something that compares to a magazine ad. And no one has delivered. Maybe solving the context problem might not be so easy. Maybe a website is not a magazine.

Meanwhile people are looking for products and services via the web, with their credit cards in hand. And Google has been there to help advertisers reach them.

That's not some promise of the future, that's the here and now.

Facebook has real power for influence. And some of that can no doubt benefit corporations. But what Google offers is something much more direct and efficient. And it's not a pie-in-the-sky promise, it's proven to have worked year after year.

Facebook has no business model. They only have everyone's curiousity. And that's mainly because the "content" on FB is everyone's friends and family, not the type of packaged, commercialised "entertainment" you get from a magazine. FB is not a magazine. It's a photo-album. More specifically, it's a collection of personal photo albums.

It does have some added "features" to the traditional photo album. It comes with tacky, invasively personal display ads in the margin. And it comes with a team of "engineers" looking over your shoulder to log every photo you look at and every comment you make. And it's exposed to viewing by millions of strangers (this is totally unnecessary). I think we can have photo albums without all that cruft. And I think we will.

What is the product? Is it the hardware? Or the software? Are you saying they are one product, not two?

We've been through this countless times. Microsoft and the OEM's. Apple and their locked down hardware. Consumers are not fools. They know the difference between a software company and a hardware company.

Does your packaged food come with silverware?

Do your finished songs come with an mp3 player?

Does your premade clothing come with laundry detergent?

I find these type of comparsions (e.g. of computers and software to food, music, clothing) very strange. We are talking about cheap, programmable consumer electronics. And then we are having an argument over whether the consumer should have the ability to program them. It is absurd.

It's sort of like Facebook having a "Like" button but no button to signal caution. It's a distortion of reality.

If everything we ate smelled and tasted "good", we'd die. Because we would eat poisonous things. There is a reason why some things smell or taste "bad".

As another commenter points out, it's a shame because knowing what projects did not work, and when, would be helpful.

Trial and error is a proven way to reach success.

Kickstarter is hiding the errors.

Maybe the ecosystem just isn't big enough yet. Too much of the market is still not yet using Apple's products.

Maybe when Apple reaches Microsoft-level penetration, and of course that is their goal (Exhbit A: Apple pricing trends), you might get your druthers.

It really should not be necessary to "jailbreak" a device in the first instance. The user should be able to easily install their own choice of software on the hardware they have paid for: e.g., applications, OS, bootloader and BIOS. If you want to install Apple's software, you can. If you do not want to install their software, you can install something else. Simple.

Simons' supervisor commented that he was a model employee for AOL's Palo Alto Office.

"Eric was always on time, never late for work."